It's sadge that we have no clarity on the above. It's poor form to keep people in limbo status on what is seemingly a easy decision to make.
Gulden operates uniquely to other coins. Its a hybrid setup with centralised funding for development but Rijk doesn't take responsibility for the coins success or failure outside of development. This is left to the supporters of Gulden to make a success. This is what I read from Rijks previous posts which is good that he is transparent about it.
Its a hard concept to grasp because it looks lazy AF but its less stressful for the developers who can focus on development.
The syscoin devs in 2019 did centralized funding for 2 years because they took responsibility / ownership for the coins success in all areas. They admitted before 2019 that it was stressful to make it and that additional funding was needed through bloclchain rewards called governance. They were lucky but the hard work paid off , but many coins have failed that relied on the developers to do everything.
Then you get the 3rd type which is btc, dogecoin , decentralized funding and volunteer developers who do get paid through various funding. A lot of contributions is done for free but these cases are edge cases because of bitcoin being first and the attention dogecoin achieves for free. Hello Elon Musk.